axel

If Yugoslavia is to serve as an example, then we should look closely at the situation that arose after Milosevic was thrown out of office. At that time, the democratic and "anti-corruption" opposition seized power as Kostunica was elected President and Zoran Djindjic was named prime minister. __________________________________________________________ 12:30 2001-08-24 NEBOJSHA MALIC: THE SERBIAN STANDOFF On August 3, 2001, a retired State Security (SDB) official by the name of Momir Gavrilovic visited the office of Yugoslavia's President Vojislav Kostunica, and talked to his advisors about the links between the Serbian government of Zoran Djindjic and organized crime. We will never know what made the habitually quiet "Gavra" (as his wife called him) talk. He was gunned down the same evening. When the Belgrade daily, Blic, cited inside sources from Kostunica's office claiming that Gavrilovic discussed government corruption, Djindjic's henchmen Vladan Batic and Zarko Korac immediately unleashed a barrage of vitriol against the paper. Police interrogated the editor and demanded that the editor reveal the name of his source. The editor refused, and on August 9, President Kostunica confirmed the Blic story. Djindjic -- on a secret lobbying trip to Washington, after selling Serbia's computer market to Microsoft -- took a week to cry foul. By then, the unholy alliance between Djindjic, Montenegro's despot, Milo Djukanovic, and the most powerful criminal clans in Serbia, was out in the open. Kostunica Strikes Back On August 17, Kostunica's party struck back, announcing it was quitting the Serbian government and calling for a review of its practices. This threw Djindjic's cabinet into chaos and stoked fears that the entire regime could collapse. At a press conference on the 21st, Dragan Marsicanin, the Chairman of the Serbian Parliament and one of the leaders in Kostunica's DSS, cited a plethora of issues his party intended to raise. Among them: that the government was deceiving the people, that it had not implemented any of its promised reforms, that it did not function properly, that it has established monopolies and taken over thousands of enterprises, that its Prime Minister maintains connections with mobsters, and that the current economic and political crisis in Serbia is largely a product of the current government, not its Socialist predecessor. This type of thinking in a country that has until recently blamed everything but foul weather on Milosevic is nothing short of revolutionary. Better Late than Never? It was not so long ago that Djindjic was riding high on the wave of treacherous accomplishments: he had successfully monopolized the Serbian oil and cigarette trade in the government's hands, delivered Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague Inquisition -- destroying the Serbian and Yugoslav constitution in the process -- and had just about destroyed his only serious rival, Kostunica. Kostunica has only now begun to really fight back. Kostunica's inaction in June and July cost him much in the eyes of the people. How much, exactly -- enough to be defeated in the slugfest with Djindjic? -- only time will tell. Serbia's Opposite of Democracy It is nothing short of a miracle that a coalition of no less than 18 parties spanning the entire political spectrum has survived this long. Still incongruously called the "Democratic Opposition," the ruling hydra more resembles the "Opposite of Democracy," with parties and egotistical leaders that can hardly stomach each other, and that disagree on how the country should be organized. Only two of the 18 parties -- Djindjic's Democrats (DS) and Kostunica's Serbian Democrats (DSS) -- have any chance of victory on their own -- the others barely have a program and a functioning office. If elections were held tomorrow, the DSS would triumph convincingly, and all the freeloaders that jumped on Kostunica's victorious bandwagon last year could be left behind in the dust. Djindjic, whose popularity has steadily run in single digits and who came to power only because his candidacy list ran under Kostunica's name, faces certain defeat. Kostunica's revolt opens up prospects for criminal charges against the wannabe despot, on grounds ranging from embezzlement, smuggling and corruption, to crimes against the Constitution and high treason. Given such prospects, Djindjic is likely to put up a major fight. A Crook... Evidence of that came on Tuesday, as Djindjic's allies took aim at the helpless, deceased Gavrilovic. A certain Dragan Karleusa, introduced as "deputy police superintended for organized crime," alleged that Gavrilovic was a mobster involved in smuggling, drug-running, murders and extortion. This is the same Karleusa, then identified as "police captain," who was in charge of the infamous "refrigerator truck" investigation, trotted out to justify president Milosevic's abduction in late June and then forgotten -- except when recycled by some pro-NATO papers, who make it more sinister with each telling. So does Karleusa run war crimes cases or organized crime cases -- or is he just a loyal underling that Minister Mihajlovic uses for dirty work such as character assassination? Mihajlovic is a shady businessman who made a fortune during Milosevic's "dictatorship," and saved his fortune from Djindjic's Great Looting Tax on "extra profit" by becoming Herr Kanzler's most rabid henchman. His wielding of the police ministry as a baton against all of Djindjic's enemies caused the DSS to demand his resignation even before the Gavrilovic affair. Djindjic's gambit is transparent. Had Gavrilovic really been a shady figure, that would have been mentioned on the night of his murder, not two weeks later. Belgrade may have over a million residents, but it is still a surprisingly small city. Its rumor mill has worked all too well for over two centuries. Gavrilovic's shady past, if there had been one, would have been known right away. Besides, it is hard to keep a straight face when Djindjic's henchmen accuse the deceased of befriending a mobster, when Djindjic himself has been known to use the very same mobster's private jet to visit his sponsors in the Western world. What Dreams May Come There are two possible ways of resolving the present crisis. Either the DSS will cut a deal with the rest of the Djindjic-dominated coalition and lose face (again) by bartering honesty for two or three ministerial posts in a "reconstructed" government, or the coalition will be torn asunder, and new elections called. This would be a good thing, since whoever emerges victorious from the power struggle would have a clear mandate to shape Serbia and Yugoslavia as they wish, as well as the burden of responsibility if that process backfires. In the final analysis, the days to come will be a crucial test of Kostunica's dubious willingness to hold firm on principle and stand up to foreign interference, Djindjic's ability (or lack thereof) to continue serving foreign masters without being sheltered by Kostunica's reputation, and the Serbian people's will and ability to decide their own fate. Who runs Serbia and Yugoslavia has wide-ranging implications for the Balkans. A victory for pro-independence Constitutionalists (as opposed to "pragmatic" Westernists) would be a serious blow to Imperial control of the Balkans, one that would -- let us hope -- serve as an example for Serbia's neighbors. The Empire's bullying insistence that all resistance to its domination is futile is an illusion that needs only be successfully shattered once. No amount of tanks, bombs and men would be able to put it together again afterwards.

quote:We tend to resist and reject all ideas that threaten our inner balance; and the more violently we reject them the more serious their threat or the more precarious our inner balance. You violently reject antisemitism, is that to say it represents a threat to your "precarious" inner balance? quote:Philosophy thus allows us to expose as illusions all metaphysical and ideological systems (that is, religions and -isms) that maintain to have truth on their side. Wrong, you speak of Philosophy but you should rather speak of philosophical systems as there is no Philosophy in the absolute but a number of philosophies, each of them based on a number of axioms. Relativistic philosophies (philosophies that assert that absolutes do not exist) actually contradict themselves for the axioms they are based upon are absolute! No valid philosophy can invalidate religion for religion and Faith are beyond the limits of pure reasoning. quote:The power of knowledge is accessible to all, but most people prefer the prison of ignoranceKnowledge without understanding is worthless. [ March 05, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

Dear Ara, you wrote: quote:Which is why i am willing to agree with a system that catches one crook among a thousand crooks, because i believe one crook less is better than nothing. I am not willing to agree (intellectually speaking) with a system that is run by crooks. And major crooks judging minor crooks is not ethically acceptable. I thought you were against all corrupt regimes but now you seem to put up with some of them by invoking pragmatism. I find this attitude self-contradictory. [ March 04, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: axel ]

The whole discourse of the opposition consists in demonizing their opponent. I do not see anything positive in such an attitude as far as Armenia's democracy is concerned. On the contrary, this attitude fosters distrust and distrust is incompatible with democracy. Those who manipulate public opinion and who use media campaigns to discredit a program with gratuitous accusations on their opponent are anti-democrats. Real democrats should fight on the field of ideas not on that of personality. Independent (ie opposition) news agencies are rather silent about yesterday's debate. True, Demirtchyan did not say much and that is no surprise, he doesn't have much of a political program (and that is a euphemism), his only argument actually boils down to "I am not Kotcharian". Does the "I am not Kotcharian" four-word program guarantee Armenia's future and independence? I for one would say such a "vision" is rather short-sighted.

Nairi, you're not a failure, you're a misunderstood genius

Dear Ara, quote:i am afraid there are some wild generalities here but it is my impression that you are so infatuated with your own views and expertise that are not open to counter-arguments.On the contrary, I am open to any counter-arguments but I'd like to see those based on valid historical facts and not "wild generalities" as you put it . An intellectual or writer has an immense responsibility with respect to his readers and has to be rigorous in his judgements. Do you realize the nefarious consequences of false ideas being propagated in society? Isn't that what the twentieth century with all its atrocities is all about? Lies and deception. Minor alterations of the truth result in complete untruths being spread. Isn't that perspective horrifying when you think about it? I personaly do not participate in discussions of topics I am not familiar with. That is why when I speak, people get the impression I am infatuated with my views because usually I have enough knowledge to defend my point and I tend to stick to it, unless faced with solid arguments. On the other hand, when I am ignorant or not at ease with a particular topic, I choose to remain silent. quote:Bin Laden too justifies his crimes by evoking Hiroshima.And Hitler justified his by asking the well-know rhetorical question: "Who remembers the Armenians?" I wonder whether you actually understand french. This text is not about justifying any crime. On the contrary it is about condemning all of them including those hypocritically committed in the name of freedom... It is about asking for equal justice for both the victors and the losers. You raised the issue of war crime trials. Soljenitsyne makes the observation that no tribunal was setup for the ones who destroyed Hiroshima and Dresden. And he notes that international laws that would condemn criminals on both sides have not yet been defined. Can you possibly disagree with him, in all honesty? [ February 25, 2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: axel ]

My mistake, I wrote: What's the point of bringing to the masses "a point of view about the Armenian Genocide that is diametrically opposite to the truth"? which doesn't follow from what you said. I didn't read your post carefully enough.

Stormy, the sentence "une œuvre dont il a défendu dans un premier temps la présentation en Turquie." implies he is no longer for Ararat being shown to turkish audiences (my translation may have been incorrect). What's the point of bringing to the masses "a point of view about the Armenian Genocide that is diametrically opposite to the truth"? THOTH, I wasn't speaking of immaturity but of ignorance. Your charge against Varduhi was a bit rude and your supporting a tete-de-turc.com article together with Stormy was quite displaced in my view. [ February 21, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

excerpt: "De son côté, Atillâ Dorsay, le plus célèbre et le plus influent des critiques turcs, avoue dans le quotidien Sabah (Le Matin) son profond malaise face au "spectacle de la violence" délivré par une œuvre dont il a défendu dans un premier temps la présentation en Turquie. "Ararat montre les Turcs comme des oppresseurs assoiffés de sang", note-t-il. En contenant des scènes de massacre d'une "horreur inimaginable", le film sera mis au service de "l'hostilité anti-turque" à travers le monde." Translation: Attila Dorsay, the most famous and influent of the turkish critics admits in the daily Sabah his profound unease at the "show of violence" delivered by the work whose presentation he had at first defended. "Ararat shows turks as blood-thirsty oppressors", he notes. By its display of massacre scenes of "unconceivable horror", the film will be put to the service of "anti-turkish hostility" throughout the world. I wonder: should we falsify history in order to achieve reconciliation? [ February 21, 2003, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

THOTH you wrote, quote:you continue to demonstrate your juvenility/immaturity and ignorance. Its really not pretty.I don't want to be rude but you fail to see the beam in your own eye. In one of your previous messages you wrote "ad naseum" in order to sound educated. Well, the correct latin expression happens to be "ad nauseam". As for the site referenced by turcophile Stormy, it is a well-known turkish-run negationist site! So please stop the BS propaganda.

Sasun, I fully agree with you. Actually, is it possible to point out a non-corrupt regime in history (once propaganda has been put aside)? Very few examples come to mind for perfection is not a property of human nature. Ara Baliozan may well be the exception that confirms the rule. [ February 21, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

You are quite ignorant of french history so please do not spread your ignorance. Most of those you qualify as french "patriots" were in fact communists. As for the true patriots such as De Gaulle, "freedom-caring" americans tried to get rid of them for they did not serve their purpose and imperialistic ends. Your simplistic and manichaean views on history are quite disconcerting to say the least. Encore un autre sommet d'hypocrisie politique : la manière dont se pratiquent les "procès des criminels de guerre". Depuis des millénaires qu'il y a des guerres, elles ont toujours été entachées, dans les deux camps en conflit, par des crimes et des injustices... Mais, lors du premier procès de ce type, celui des nationaux-socialistes allemands, à Nuremberg, nous avons vu siéger sur la haute estrade, en arbitres immaculés, les responsables d'une justice qui, durant ces années-là, envoya à la torture, au poteau d'exécution ou à la mort lente, dans son propre pays, des dizaines de millions de vies innocentes. Et si l'on fait la distinction entre la mort des militaires, toujours inévitable au cours d'une guerre, et le massacre en masse des populations civiles, quel nom donner à ceux qui brûlèrent en quelques minutes, dans la seule ville d'Hiroshima, 140 000 paisibles habitants, en prétendant se justifier, dans une formule ahurissante, par le souci de "conserver en vie leurs soldats" ? Mais ce président-là et son entourage ne furent pas traduits en jugement, ils s'éteignirent au contraire avec une auréole d'honorables vainqueurs. Et quel nom donner... à ceux qui, la victoire étant déjà assurée, envoyèrent, deux jours et deux nuits durant, des armadas aériennes brûler la magnifique ville de Dresde, toute civile et bourrée de paisibles réfugiés ? En notre siècle qui connaît un tel épanouissement de la pensée juridique, comment ne pas voir que les lois internationales pondérées qui châtieraient équitablement les criminels, indépendamment -indépendamment ! - de la défaite ou de la victoire de leur camp, ces lois ne sont pas encore fabriquées, pas encore reconnues par l'ensemble de l'humanité ? (Alexandre Soljénitsyne, déclaration faite en 1994, à l'occasion du bicentenaire de la guerre de vendée).

quote:I am the TRUE computer scientist looking for the ultimate truth behind thingsLOL... I am a FALSE computer scientist, an apostate. I didn't think you would take my message seriously . Note that most analogy-based arguments are completely flawed. But in all seriousness, there are elements of nihilism and Gerschensonism (Mikail) in Ara's messages. I am also inclined to consider him as an armenian Smerdiakov. But I'd like to hear from Vahan about this latter designation . After all, he is the Dostoevsky expert on this board.

My dear Sip, I am afraid you don't fully grasp the hidden implications of Ara's nihilist philosophy. In the realm of computing, this would not even translate to platform or language independence but to no platform at all (non existence!) to guarantee independence. Suicide as the ultimate act of freedom as Kirilov puts it! As if we could not hold to the true orthodox faith, as if Stroustrup was not the truth!!! Of course, we have to beware of all these false prophets that come to us in sheep clothing, you know, all these Java and C# evangelists who invite us to sell our soul for the ephemeral satisfaction of garbage collection and metadata introspection! Do not play into their hands and do not succumb to the temptation of writing C++.NET code!!! This would amount to major apostasy! We can no longer afford furher divisions. The old believers and the schismatics who sticked with ALGOL58 should be brought back into the true spirit.

quote:In short, the world will be saved by human beings and not by members of a particular set, group, club, nation or race.Yes, human beings with no identity, no soul, no faith, no culture, in short, non-human beings . I guess this is the group you belong to. quote:The reason why some men have big egos is that (according to Freud, Jung, and Adler, who agree on nothing but agree on this) they have small dicksWell if this assertion is true, I am inclined to conclude you do have a small dick. [ February 09, 2003, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

THOTH, When I say, I do not advocate any particular political system; it doesn't mean I am for no political system at all (which happens to be a political system in itself ). I just consider that political systems can only play a marginal role in addressing mankind's challenges. Anarchists and socialists' main belief is that society corrupts man. In other words, evil lies in society and culture, not in man. Hence, changing society and destroying culture is the solution to evil in this world. This conception doesn't take into account man's conscience and spirit. Evil exists both inside and outside us. Evil first has to be defeated in the realm of our own conscience. But it can never be completely eradicated as it belongs to this world. The fight between good and evil has no end for there will always be an antagonism between egoism and altruism, self-interest and common interest, pleasure and sacrifice... In fact, there exists a dialectical relationship between good and evil as, paradoxically, good sometimes comes out of evil, as suffering brings one to conscience. In any circumstance, spiritual development is the only solution for a better world as it enables man to master his instincts of destruction and tend towards altruism. And Good doesn't have to reinvent itself. PS: I'm quite glad we finally found some ground for mutual understanding. [ February 08, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:Like I said, who am I to say anything?Yes, who are you to say "who am I to say anything"? THOTH, about capitalism and socialism: I reject their full implementation that is I condemn them as fundamental principles for the organization of society (ie as religions) not as mere political systems. Both lead to slavery and exploitation and to the leveling of mankind. I for one do not consider any human system as perfect and I do not expect much from a socio-political system so I won't advocate any. Laws do not guarantee people do good. My criticism is not tied to the system itself but to the underlying spirit. Globalized capitalism and communism are both religions derived from materialistic premises that enslave Man to matter. There is no room for ethics in such ideologies. My view is that society should be organized according to ethical principles, which of course should not be enforced, but freely adopted. [ February 07, 2003, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:perpetual revolution?Sorry to disappoint you my dear THOTH but I am not a self-ignorant anarchist and I do not espouse the views of either Trotsky or Bakounine. Perpetual tabula rasa is diametrically opposed to my intimate beliefs I feel much closer to Berdyaev or Solzhenitsyn. Have you read the Harvard address? http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...arvard1978.html [ February 07, 2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

quote:Stalin killed millions -- 25 million at least. How many did Trotsky kill? Dear Ara, this is quite off-topic and I don't need any historical facts to support my thesis in a debate on ideological or philosophical principles but I wonder: Have you heard of one terror organization called the Tcheka? It wasn't set up by Stalin, was it? [ February 07, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: axel ]

Sasun, do not mistake social democracy (Sweden's political system) for socialism as an ideology. Nairi, I never pretended to know everyting nor everyone. Where did you get that from? Thoth, I will answer you tomorrow but could you rephrase your second paragraph?

quote:Originally posted by ara baliozian:dear friend: all belief systems and believers are not alike. Stalin killed millions -- 25 million at least. How many did Trotsky kill? And if we judge Christianity by its crimes, we should arrest and hang all Chistians? The crimes of "Christianity" are a negation of the precepts of Christianism whereas the crimes of socialism are justified by its principles. Socialism is intrinsically inhumane.

quote:Sorry axel, will get back to the original topic after this amazing development#ifdef CS_GRADUATEI too am waiting, definitely, as this could provide us with some further insight into the NP = co-NP question. There has to be some relation, if only by the fact that both cases are fundamentally linked to the notion of complementarity. #endif

quote:I think true intelligence lies in being able to expalin 'complex' things in a simple manner! and you've done that!!My dear Hyebruin, I take that as a veiled critic However, note that simplicity doesn't imply accuracy. Sip states that intelligence is the ability to solve a problem efficiently. Based on this definition, his reasoning is correct for knowledge helps in solving problems. I never denied such an obvious fact . However, knowledge is worthless without understanding. Intelligence is in the "understanding" part. You may know all known theorems by heart, yet not be able to apply them to solve any problem. In contrast, you may not know these theorems, yet be able to infer them from basic axioms in order to solve the problem efficiently. That is to say knowledge about ways of solving a problem may be derived with the sole help of intelligence. An infinitely intelligent being would not need any knowledge to solve any kind of problem. He would be able to reconstruct a whole theory from the ground up in order to do so. That is why I distinguish between knowledge and intelligence and I do not consider the former as part of the latter PS: But based on Sip's definition of knowledge, there obviously are some forms of knowledge that may not be acquired with the sole power of the mind . I am not sure the specific form that was put forward is a pillar of intelligence, unless maybe we refer to the closeness to God thing you were talking about in a previous thread, LOL.

Dear Ara, quote:what divides us as a nation, what divides mankind as a species is intolerance and extremism.Intolerance and extremism are rather vague concepts that may easily be twisted in order to discredit any views or opinions that go against the mainstream. Solzhenitsyn himself may have been portrayed as an extremist by the soviet regime. These notions are in fact quite relative and thus almost meaningless. Some believe destroying peoples' identities is a way to achieve unity of mankind. People opposing such a perspective are deemed "extremists" by its proponents. But if such a unity requires enforcing a common denominator subculture upon all peoples, thereby abolishing what constitutes the richness of humanity, it is not worth it. That is not to say I am against unity. But achieving unity should not require negating the essence of Man, his faith, his culture and his traditions. I believe in the message of Christ, not in that of Marx. quote:Biblical quotations can be twisted to mean all things to all men.This is quite true However, I wasn't attempting to twist anything here. If one embraces an ideal, one has to embrace it fully, not moderately. What we should aim for is Love and Compassion, not just "tolerance" which most of the time may be equated with indifference.

Socialism is an ideal for ants. Socialism denies the right of a human to exist as an individual. Socialism may only succeed by destroying man's conscience, hence the persecution of non-followers. Those who work towards enforcing this "ideal" upon humanity are either sick or full of contempt towards other humans. Materialism and socialism go hand in hand. Contemporary capitalism pursues the same goal as socialism, only with more sophisticated means, and that goal is bringing humanity back to bestiality.